Leaderboard

Exactly, we are all mutants.

My ex-sister-in-law moaned that her car wasn't working properly. I said "I know nothing about cars". She replied "I know, I need a man". For her, 'manliness' is function of what one can do. The insult aside, 'maleness' and its opposite are clearly social constructs. She's on her third marriage, so that tells one quite a bit. She's clearly too thick to realize what what she wants is not what she needs.

You haven't decided what being a man is for you? You're too smart not to see why I ask, so I think you're looking a few moves ahead, and have decided not to answer me yet again. I think you know that each of us ultimately defines what it is to be us. We can let society and the opinions of friends and family guide us, but then we must choose to let them decide for us, or to decide for ourselves what all the pieces are supposed to do. IOW, I decide what it means to be a man when it comes to me, nobody else. I don't know about any of this. I just asked a question about people's right to choose for themselves.

I find it bemusing that insanely rich people think they understand the problems of the vast majority and think they can help, all the while, creating the conditions of poverty by draining the country's wealth away in some obscure overseas shell company.

I still like Emily Bender's term, stochastic parrot. I can't even agree with Hinton that LLMs can have "superficial understanding." They understand nothing. Understanding and what philosophers of mind call intentionality are sort of like what commercial nuclear fusion used to be described as: "always 30 years in the future." (come to think of it, commercial fusion is STILL 30 years in the future...) Just ask Henrietta, my pet chicken.

I;m not the only one. From an Aspie: This could have portended the future: Does that inspire confidence that he has safety at the forefront of his mind?

I often wonder things like that myself. But then the buzz wears off and I go looking for some snacks...

I guess "Wanktank" might sound too much like a collection device...

Possibly wankabrams didn't sound as funny. Nor would wanksherman or wankM3. (also, other tanks names, though they would convey the excessive mass and girth of the loathed SUVs, don't stand as a single word. Sherman tanks, Abrams tanks, et al, all need "tank" in their common usage, but Panzers...are just Panzers.) Afterthought: wanksherman, when heard, sounds a bit like a male resident of someplace called Wankshire. Which I would imagine is a place that could only exist in a comedic novel or sketch. Since there is actually a town in Newfoundland named Dildo, I cannot completely rule out the possible existence of a Wankshire. How Wankshiremen might feel about ambulato-mechanical onanists is an open question.

Today I learned about the Leidenfrost effect. Thanks to Swansont. Now I understand my frying pan a little better.

Perhaps you con make a complete and concise argument rather than moving the goalposts every time I question your statements. You are making me dizzy.

LOL History is rife with examples of corporations causing environmental damage, and harming (even killing) people, without going out of business as a result. Union Carbide India Limited killed thousands in Bhopal in 1984, paid a settlement and renamed itself. Still in business. Exxon, Shell and ARCO are still around, despite serious incidents. TEPCO, owner of the Fukushima reactor, is still there.

This wouldn't happen in a private company, with profit as it's core motive?

At some point the alphabet people will have to commit to laughing at themselves, if they want to be accepted. I'm on my third shoe with this joke, it would seem.